Slashdot Mirror
In Historic Turn, CO2 Emissions Flatline In 2014, Even As Global Economy Grows
mdsolar sends this report from Forbes:
A key stumbling block in the effort to combat global warming has been the intimate link between greenhouse gas emissions and economic growth. When times are good and industries are thriving, global energy use traditionally increases and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions also go up. Only when economies stumble and businesses shutter — as during the most recent financial crisis — does energy use typically decline, in turn bringing down planet-warming emissions.
But for the first time in nearly half a century, that synchrony between economic growth and energy-related emissions seems to have been broken, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency, prompting its chief economist to wonder if an important new pivot point has been reached — one that decouples economic vigor and carbon pollution. The IEA pegged carbon dioxide emissions for 2014 at 32.3 billion metric tons — essentially the same volume as 2013, even as the global economy grew at a rate of about 3 percent. Whether the disconnect is a mere fluke or a true harbinger of a paradigm shift is impossible to know. The IEA suggested that decreasing use of coal in China — and upticks in renewable electricity generation there using solar, wind and hydropower — could have contributed to the reversal.
But for the first time in nearly half a century, that synchrony between economic growth and energy-related emissions seems to have been broken, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency, prompting its chief economist to wonder if an important new pivot point has been reached — one that decouples economic vigor and carbon pollution. The IEA pegged carbon dioxide emissions for 2014 at 32.3 billion metric tons — essentially the same volume as 2013, even as the global economy grew at a rate of about 3 percent. Whether the disconnect is a mere fluke or a true harbinger of a paradigm shift is impossible to know. The IEA suggested that decreasing use of coal in China — and upticks in renewable electricity generation there using solar, wind and hydropower — could have contributed to the reversal.
Just in case you are not being sarcastic, or someone is not getting it: Even with constant emisions, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is still increasing, now it is just no longer also accelerating.
And even if CO2 stopped increasing, global temperature would continue to increase for several decades.
It is the replacement of coal with natural gas that is really dropping the CO2 emissions.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
According to wikipedia, nuclear is only responsible for 2% of the Chinese electricity right now, and most of that was already operational in 2013. They are fast-tracking new plants, but it'll take a while before these are on-line. They are aiming to get 6% of their electricity from nuclear in 2020.
This just in, Carbon Dioxide still lags temperature.
Sometimes CO2 lags temperature, but even then it still leads additional temperature at the same time. Right now, it's only leading it. The oceans are still net sinks, taking up about 45% of the produced CO2.
Seriously though, this appears to be implied CO2, rather than measured.
They do both.
Once the House passed the Waxman-Markey bill, the next step would have been for the Senate to have passed its own comprehensive climate and energy bill. Unfortunately, the Senate was unable to do so...S.1733 passed the committee by a vote of 11-1, with all seven Republican members boycotting the final vote...Citing a lack of bipartisan support in the Senate, however, Reid announced in July 2010 that upcoming energy legislation would not include a cap on GHG emissions. This effectively ended action on climate legislation for the 111th Congress.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
And that kinda explains why OPEC is not lowering production volumes, sacrificing North American oil industry - it's the non-cartel companies that are dying off.
Yes, this is more likely.
China's economic growth has declined to lows in the past years, as Europe, Japan, and the US (despite all the happy propaganda talk).
I can serve up lots of links on how poorly the economies are doing.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-11/china-reports-worst-industrial-production-data-ever-outside-global-financial-crisis
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-13/what-happens-stock-market-if-us-follows-world-recession
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-12/q1-gdp-expectations-are-crashing
Let's see if the Keeling curve has an inflection !
coal has a lot of other problems besides just CO2, so the switch to natural gas is an improvement in other environmental areas besides just CO2 emissions
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
As far as I can tell the story was about direct human emissions of CO2 and didn't take into account any CO2 absorbed by biomass. The calculation probably just involved the amount of fossil fuels used and cement production (and maybe a few other industrial sources of CO2).
More like a simplistic argument from someone who hasn't done their homework gets censored.
I'm probably wasting my time but... First you need to realize the ocean and atmosphere are a coupled system with heat being transferred between them all of the time. Second the heat capacity of the ocean is at least 100 times greater than the atmosphere so small changes ocean heat absorption can make a big difference in the heat retained in the atmosphere. And the ocean has continued to warm over the past 20 years. It can't continue to do that forever without some of the heat showing up in the atmosphere eventually. (If the PDO is switching to a warm phase as it appears to be doing that will be sooner rather than later.) The slowdown in warming is probably from a combination of factors which are complimentary rather than contradictory as you believe.
AGW is proven since centuries.
This is 2015. "Centuries" would mean it was proven by 1815. Sure you want to make that claim?
Do you recognize "AIP"? American Institute of Physics. They say here:
So in the 1800's, scientists were not talking about global warming but that CO2 levels might have been responsible for the ice ages. Then:
Eight-five years after you claim AGW was proven, it was still a theory that wasn't close to universally accepted, much less proven.
One hundred and twenty three years after you claim AGW was proven, most scientists didn't accept the arguments that unattributed CO2 sources were causing a warming. "Proof by consensus" is a double-edged sword, not to mention bad science.
One hundred and forty-five years after the theory was proven, the first measurements of atmospheric CO2 were made.
Ironing the oceans might help eat some CO2, but even if all CO2 was converted into Cx + O2 the O2 level would not even increas by half a percent.
It would, however, prove fatal to a large amount of the flora on the planet. Starvation is as much a means of death as hyperoxygenation. Dead is dead.